Recent articles about my proposed education fund and related
spent nuclear fuel recycling program have produced some uninformed
and negative reactionary responses. I urge everyone in the media,
political arena and the voting public to educate themselves about
this important subject.

First, commercial recycling of used nuclear fuel has a long and
successful history, mostly outside of the United States. The French
company AREVA has successfully managed a recycling complex for more
than 40 years.

Second, approximately 60,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is stored
at nuclear reactor sites never designed for storing such material.
Deep geologic salt beds are the recommended sites for retrievable
storage of spent nuclear fuel. To maximize storage capacity at the
site, it makes sense to co-locate a recycling facility at the
storage site. In terms of mass, 96 percent of the used fuel is
reusable. As with so many other materials, it makes environmental
sense to recycle the used fuel.

Why would a community want to host a nearby recycling site? Let’s
look at Carlsbad, N.M., which entered into a partnership with the
Department of Energy, the State of New Mexico and a company called
URS to build the first Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) for
nuclear materials storage. Carlsbad sits at the southern end of the
Permian Salt Basin.

This partnership resulted in a storage facility 2,150 feet below
ground. I’ve been there to visit the facility and it is a marvelous
site. The WIPP consortium employs more than 1,000 people and brings
in $250 million annually to Carlsbad.

What problems have arisen due to WIPP? None. In fact, unemployment
there has been just above 4 percent over the past years while
national unemployment surpassed 9 percent. As of my visit to
Carlsbad last month, more than 700 jobs were unfilled and
developers could not keep up with housing demand.

Arizona has an opportunity to build a recycling and storage
facility that will bring the host community $500 million annually
over 50 years, create 18,000 construction jobs over a 10-year
period, with 5,000 direct jobs and 30,000 indirect jobs,
post-construction.

As an added benefit, we can dedicate part of the revenue stream to
K-12 and Universities. The proposed AZ Energy-Education Fund will
generate a minimum of $100 million a year for 50 years for
education in our state, over and above what we are now spending. We
have already met with representatives from K-12, Universities, the
Arizona Department of Education, power companies, technical experts
and others, and these ideas have been well received.

Arizonans should understand that this is not a project that can or
will be rushed. It is likely to be a ten-year process between
planning, site determination, working with the local communities to
make a proper presentation, and passing the needed legislation at
the State and Federal levels, all before we can break ground.

The naysayers have already begun sniping at the idea. These people
have been overreacting to the ghost of “China Syndrome” for too
long. The United States, France and other countries have long
established safety records with nuclear materials. The United
States Navy has operated nuclear powered submarines and aircraft
carriers for 50 years without incident. New Mexico’s WIPP facility
has received nearly 11,000 shipments since 2000, without
incident.

Arizona has a number of sites that contain (1) remoteness, (2) deep
geologic salt formations and (3) existing transportation
infrastructure. It is time to let potential host communities
nearest these sites make the decision. If the people say ‘yes’, the
community benefits, education benefits and all Arizonans
benefit.